The core fans

[Sander]

Because how much information can you really gather from some pictures, and maybe ten minutes of video? Now if the game was only twenty minutes long, then you could judge it. To judge it beforehand and act as if it is going to suck, when in all truth you have little to no hands on time with the game is just presumptuous.

Not really. It's judging the game with the information you've been given by, again, the developing company. This is information that the creators see as positive and representative.
In other words, this is what they use to give you the most positive image of the game they can.
Yet it still looks pretty bad to most of us.

Also, y'know, every single gaming magazine out there goes 'FALLOUT 3 IS GOING TO BE AWSUM' without any hands-on time either.

 

[Bionicpope]

Because how much information can you really gather from some pictures, and maybe ten minutes of video? Now if the game was only twenty minutes long, then you could judge it. To judge it beforehand and act as if it is going to suck, when in all truth you have little to no hands on time with the game is just presumptuous.

Not really. It's judging the game with the information you've been given by, again, the developing company. This is information that the creators see as positive and representative.
In other words, this is what they use to give you the most positive image of the game they can.
Yet it still looks pretty bad to most of us.

Also, y'know, every single gaming magazine out there goes 'FALLOUT 3 IS GOING TO BE AWSUM' without any hands-on time either.

Yea, I know most gaming magazines, if not all of them do that, that is why I don't bother reading gaming magazines, or going to them for reviews. I normally just hold out hope for a game being good enough for me to buy it.

I look at the past games made by a studio, and if those are good, then normally the new game they are making will be at least somewhat decent. Sure studios sometimes fail in making a new game, but they also have a good chance of making a new game that is amazing.

My main point in all of this is that, people are judging this game based on very little information. That is like reading the back cover of a book, and then saying that it sucks. They have given us some promotional information, and from that I have made an opinion, but it isn't set in stone, and it isn't a strong opinion. I think that the game will at least provide me with some entertainment. I don't know many games that [spoiler:ed42b02ae7] lets me blow up a city that is built on a crater created by a nuke that didn't go off, or lets me save that city from being blown up.[/spoiler:ed42b02ae7]


This game might be the worst thing every created by man, and create some sort of black void of unfun, and everyone that buys it will get sucked into that void and their families and friends will be viciously raped by all sorts of demons. Then again the game might be fun, and provide people with a few hours of entertainment, and isn't that what video games are about?

 

[Texas Renegade]

I consider myself a core fan, most here probably don't, but I loved FO1, I really liked FO2. Tactics was fun from a tacticle feel, but didn't have the story and inventiveness of the 1st 2.

I never played BOS.

However, I am positive about the game. I think it has great potential, and if I go into it looking for a fun game in the fallout universe, rather then bracing for every mistake, then I feel I will enjoy it.

I liked morrowind, didn't care for the consequence free world of oblivion. Plus, the inventory/items were just setup annoyingly in regard to various aspects.

Will this game be what most expected FO3 to be 10 years ago. No. However, rereading some of the older stuff on here, neither was van buren.

 

[Sander]

Yea, I know most gaming magazines, if not all of them do that, that is why I don't bother reading gaming magazines, or going to them for reviews. I normally just hold out hope for a game being good enough for me to buy it.

I look at the past games made by a studio, and if those are good, then normally the new game they are making will be at least somewhat decent. Sure studios sometimes fail in making a new game, but they also have a good chance of making a new game that is amazing.

For most of the people here this is another reason to think Fallout 3 is not going to be any good, because most did not like Oblivion whatsoever.

My main point in all of this is that, people are judging this game based on very little information. That is like reading the back cover of a book, and then saying that it sucks. They have given us some promotional information, and from that I have made an opinion, but it isn't set in stone, and it isn't a strong opinion. I think that the game will at least provide me with some entertainment. I don't know many games that [spoiler:8805e7240e] lets me blow up a city that is built on a crater created by a nuke that didn't go off, or lets me save that city from being blown up.[/spoiler:8805e7240e]

This argument is very reminiscent of the reason people like Jerry Bruckheimer movies.

This game might be the worst thing every created by man, and create some sort of black void of unfun, and everyone that buys it will get sucked into that void and their families and friends will be viciously raped by all sorts of demons. Then again the game might be fun, and provide people with a few hours of entertainment, and isn't that what video games are about?

It might be fun, but since they're making Fallout 3 and not random-new-game, that criteria isn't very relevant for fans of the original games who want a continuation of that series.

Will this game be what most expected FO3 to be 10 years ago. No. However, rereading some of the older stuff on here, neither was van buren.

Wow, that last bit came out of nowhere.
Also, Van Buren was a lot closer to what 'core fans' wanted out of Fallout than Fallout 3 seems to be.

 

[Tel Prydain]

For most of the people here this is another reason to think Fallout 3 is not going to be any good, because most did not like Oblivion whatsoever.

There are a few people over at Evil Avatar who were able to play the Fallout 3 demo at PAX. I know these guys, I know that they loved the original Fallout - and so when they tell me that Fallout 3 may look like Elder Scrolls but does not play like it, I believe them.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Also, Van Buren was a lot closer to what 'core fans' wanted out of Fallout than Fallout 3 seems to be.

Again, I don't think anyone on here has any business saying what core fans wanted. Was it closer to what the majority on NMA wanted... probably, judging from the posts on both I would agree with that.

However, I think NMA makes up a vocal minority of the fans of the original fallout and are no more entitled to calling themselves the core fans then the unwashed villagers ( who I was also involved with back in thd day) had any business calling themselves the core fans of the game.

Very passionate, but I don't think one point of view makes you more a core fan then another.

Being a "core fan" means you have been a fan of the series and have a passionate vested interest in it, it doesn't imply any set of beliefs about what the game is or isn't supposed to be.

So if you want to say that Van Buren was more along the lines of what NMA community wanted, fine. I just don't think being a core fan means you subscribe to some dogma of what fallout is.

 

[Bionicpope]

Also, Van Buren was a lot closer to what 'core fans' wanted out of Fallout than Fallout 3 seems to be.

Again, I don't think anyone on here has any business saying what core fans wanted. Was it closer to what the majority on NMA wanted... probably, judging from the posts on both I would agree with that.

However, I think NMA makes up a vocal minority of the fans of the original fallout and are no more entitled to calling themselves the core fans then the unwashed villagers ( who I was also involved with back in thd day) had any business calling themselves the core fans of the game.

Very passionate, but I don't think one point of view makes you more a core fan then another.

Being a "core fan" means you have been a fan of the series and have a passionate vested interest in it, it doesn't imply any set of beliefs about what the game is or isn't supposed to be.

So if you want to say that Van Buren was more along the lines of what NMA community wanted, fine. I just don't think being a core fan means you subscribe to some dogma of what fallout is.

Whoa I don't remember saying anything about Van Buren... that is odd. Please don't misquote me.

 

[Tagaziel]

Also, Van Buren was a lot closer to what 'core fans' wanted out of Fallout than Fallout 3 seems to be.

Again, I don't think anyone on here has any business saying what core fans wanted. Was it closer to what the majority on NMA wanted... probably, judging from the posts on both I would agree with that.

However, I think NMA makes up a vocal minority of the fans of the original fallout and are no more entitled to calling themselves the core fans then the unwashed villagers ( who I was also involved with back in thd day) had any business calling themselves the core fans of the game.

Very passionate, but I don't think one point of view makes you more a core fan then another.

Being a "core fan" means you have been a fan of the series and have a passionate vested interest in it, it doesn't imply any set of beliefs about what the game is or isn't supposed to be.

So if you want to say that Van Buren was more along the lines of what NMA community wanted, fine. I just don't think being a core fan means you subscribe to some dogma of what fallout is.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/content.php?page=features&id=13

Read why Fallout was designed the way it was and stop posting pointless drivel.

 

[Sander]

Again, I don't think anyone on here has any business saying what core fans wanted. Was it closer to what the majority on NMA wanted... probably, judging from the posts on both I would agree with that.

Note how I used the qualifier 'most' and also put core fans in quotation marks so as to indicate that there are no real 'core fans'.

But if any group of people can be called core fans, it's the people who make up the largest Fallout fansite on the web. Ie, this one. If there were another group of fans that had differing viewpoints, but were passionate about the game, you'd think they'd have a website too.

However, I think NMA makes up a vocal minority of the fans of the original fallout and are no more entitled to calling themselves the core fans then the unwashed villagers ( who I was also involved with back in thd day) had any business calling themselves the core fans of the game.

Very passionate, but I don't think one point of view makes you more a core fan then another.

Being a "core fan" means you have been a fan of the series and have a passionate vested interest in it, it doesn't imply any set of beliefs about what the game is or isn't supposed to be.

So if you want to say that Van Buren was more along the lines of what NMA community wanted, fine. I just don't think being a core fan means you subscribe to some dogma of what fallout is.

Wait, what? Do you now feel disqualified as a Fallout fan because, oh my god, some guy on the internet said you weren't a 'core' fan?

Also, see Mikael Grizzly's link about Fallout's core design elements, which we've documented with developer quotes. It also clearly shows that Van Buren's design was much closer to the original Fallout principles than Fallout 3 is.

 

[cratchety ol joe]

I think there are perhaps 3 camps of fans,

1: The RPG addict; doesn't really care about anything graphical, if the game were just stick-men drawing s he/she would be happy as long as the story is coherent, enjoyable and intriguing. this type of FO fan loves the parts of the game where he/she plans a 'character sheet' to enhance the games fun for them, be it a super stealthy ninja style or a "OMG i can haz Small Guns at 215%" approach.

2. The casual role-player; probably more interested simply in the fact that they don't actually have to do all the nerdy character sheet writing of a real role play, they enjoy the game for its humour, style or content simply as it is something that appeals to them.

3. The computer gamer; this group would be those that like the latest stuff, its new, it must be good/better than the old. and includes all those that cant see beyond the anti-aliasing (so to speak)

I'm sure further more defined categories could be involved as well, but as for 'Core fans' I'd like to think that these are the groups 1 and 2, they love FO because its FO. and those that fall into Cat.3 or perhaps have elements of their gaming choice based in the ideology of Cat.3 are probably those that are considered 'not core'

To try to discuss 'core game fan' is tricky, a hardline fan is one that loves everything about a game and its follow on additions. including the bad bits.. they simply love the brand etc. (these would be a funky mush-together of all 3 categories, and probably a few different bits too)

but as I myself come somewhere just before Cat.2 (with a little Cat.1) I'd like to think I'm an avid fan, I love fallout, but part of the reason I love fallout was the way the game was presented, it was a serious role play game, with some nice quasi-isometric graphics and a kick ass story.

Am I a core fan?? I can't say, all I know is that I LOVE the original fallouts (FO:1, FO:2, FO:T)

Fallout BoS (PoS) was an abomination.
Fallout 3 looks a LOT like stalker, and it simply holds NO attraction for me. its an FPS. its pretty it is (as i have written here) a game for Category 3 players.

 

[Humpsalot]

Again how would you define a core fan? If I loved FO1/2, back in 1997, and was the reason I got into hardcore gaming and also the reason I stuck with gaming. Does that make me a core fan?

Ill take it even further, say the above was true and I am glad someone made a FO3 when interplay went bankrupt. Does that unmake me a core fan?

Even further, if I were to say the company making FO3 is doing a good job. Would you ban me from the website and flame me till the day I die?

Are core fans only considered core fans because the 50 people who know every single thing about fallout say so?

 

[Ausir]

Ill take it even further, say the above was true and I am glad someone made a FO3 when interplay went bankrupt. Does that unmake me a core fan?

If not Bethesda, someone else would have bought the license and made FO3. I don't think it's something we should be thankful for.

 

[Humpsalot]

sure, maybe if we waited another 10 years, and interplay would have still been bankrupt, and they wouldnt be able to make the MMO ive heard they are planning for FO. But you MIGHT be right SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE down the line MIGHT have made another one. And some people would have not liked that one then you would have been like "someone else will make another one" 20 years later...... ect.

 

[Sander]

Again how would you define a core fan? If I loved FO1/2, back in 1997, and was the reason I got into hardcore gaming and also the reason I stuck with gaming. Does that make me a core fan?

Ill take it even further, say the above was true and I am glad someone made a FO3 when interplay went bankrupt. Does that unmake me a core fan?

Even further, if I were to say the company making FO3 is doing a good job. Would you ban me from the website and flame me till the day I die?

Are core fans only considered core fans because the 50 people who know every single thing about fallout say so?

Ugh, this is the dumbest argument ever.
No one can define 'core' fan, but if anything can define core fan, it's probably the oldest, largest fan website out there, don't you think? Ie. this one.

Also, don't troll with the 'will you ban me' stuff. It's nonsensical and that *will* get you banned.

sure, maybe if we waited another 10 years, and interplay would have still been bankrupt, and they wouldnt be able to make the MMO ive heard they are planning for FO. But you MIGHT be right SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE down the line MIGHT have made another one. And some people would have not liked that one then you would have been like "someone else will make another one" 20 years later...... ect.

Ehm, what? This bit of text makes very little sense. What are you trying to say? That if Bethesda hadn't bought the license no one had? Or that if someone else had maybe they would've made a shitty version as well?
Well, yeah, maybe they would have. And no, I wouldn't be happy with that either. So? Should I be happy that anything at all is getting made, or should I be wanting some quality work to continue the series instead of crappy work effectively ending the series as we know it?

 

[Texas Renegade]

nice post crotchety, I agree with most everything you say.

Except I could care less about graphics. Lord I still play PTO IV on the SNES from time to time and Shingen the Ruler, so graphics are no biggie to me, yet I am looking forward to FO 3.

Course I am of the opinion that FO: Tactics was a good game, not perfect, but good.

I also never wasted my time with BOS. I don't know how bad it was, but I was totally turned off of the game by what I read about it leading up to the game.

Not getting that vibe with this game. I may be letting myself be to naive and hopefull, but I can't wait for FO 3 to get here.

 

[Skynet 2.0]

This game might be the worst thing every created by man, and create some sort of black void of unfun, and everyone that buys it will get sucked into that void and their families and friends will be viciously raped by all sorts of demons. Then again the game might be fun, and provide people with a few hours of entertainment, and isn't that what video games are about?

The world is going to end on October 28, 2008. Not because of the Large Hadron Collider, but because of the massive black hole of mediocrity, wooden animations, poor voice acting, shallow, linear plot, and non-canonness of Fallout 3.